Subject: Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
From: Seth Johnson <>
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2006 22:34:08 -0400

I invite you to attempt to live in a world without reason.  Say,
a world guided by the notion that vulgar empiricism covers

Software freedom is absolutely absolute.  The only conceivable
form of exception is a police state.  And that case only
represents an order that stands in abject disavowal of reality.


"David H. Lynch Jr." wrote:
> Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> > This applies to "free as in free speech" software, too.  Software
> > freedom is not and cannot be an absolute.  It must be embedded in a
> > larger context, but its leading advocates explicitly refuse to do so.
> >
>     And why not ?
>     Almost every values advocacy group believes their values are so
> fundamental they drive laws and nature not the other way around.
>     Besides why are some abstractions like the laws of thermodynamics
> absolute, while free speech is fungible.
>     Whether some value is or can be absolute depends on whether the
> world and society can continue to function in that context.
>     "embedded in a larger context" is just an appeal to some other value
> - it does not matter what one, that is one step closer to absolute.
>     Even the rejection of  "absolute values" is inherently self
> contradictory.
> --
> Dave Lynch                                                  DLA Systems
> Software Development:                                    Embedded Linux
> 717.627.3770  
> fax: 1.253.369.9244                                Cell: 1.717.587.7774
> Over 25 years' experience in platforms, languages, and technologies too numerous to
> "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch
of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction."
> Albert Einstein


RIAA is the RISK!  Our NET is P2P!

DRM is Theft!  We are the Stakeholders!

New Yorkers for Fair Use

[CC] Counter-copyright:

I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or
distribution of this incidentally recorded communication. 
Original authorship should be attributed reasonably, but only so
far as such an expectation might hold for usual practice in
ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of
exclusive rights.